«

People have complained (rightly) about the noise level
in Panasonic cameras, even the FZ30, their newest.
But it seems to me that all Panasonic has done has left some
of the "sledgehammer" digital noise reduction out of the
processing in the camera, unlike some other makers.
In tests this methodology has allowed for greater detail in the
Panasonic shots than other cameras. You can always apply the noise
reduction afterward, and tune it to your liking with
"Neat Image" or some other competent noise-reduction program.
Isn't this the better way?
I am excluding cameras with very low noise from this discussion
such as the Fuji F10.
I also do not own a Panasonic.
-Rich

On 24 Oct 2005 03:51:32 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Panasonc fz30,that..?
>
>http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pa...ghtshot200.jpg
>
>http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fu...ghtshot200.jpg
>
>http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ol...ghtshot200.jpg
>
>look at details on wall's building...

My unskilled eye is drawn to the Fuji but the exposures are
not the same, the Panasonic seeming under exposed and the Olympus over
exposed as appears to be the case from the EXIF data assuming similar
lighting. The dates are different so could varying atmospheric
conditions not also play a role? All are ISO 200 but time and
aperture vary. The Fuji is a manual exposure while the others are
auto. Should the pictures not all be taken under as nearly identical
circumstances as possible for the most valid comparison? Hey, maybe
buddy bumped the Panasonic tripod. ;-)

OTOH I could be FOS. It happened once before and seemed to
continue on from there.

Well, I think Panasonic could have done a better job with the noise. Just so
you know I own both the FZ20 and the FZ30. However, I also have owned a
Canon 20D and got rid of it because it was almost noiseless in most of the
ISO settings. I don't like 100% noise free images. They look like they were
rendered in a 3D program.

So a little noise at lease for me is a good thing, it makes the images look
more real. That said, Panasonic could have made the ISO 300 and 400 on their
cameras a little bit cleaner. But, still I think they have some of the best
cameras given price and features.

I have shot probably 5000 images with both of the Panasonic's I own and find
very few complaints about the pictures. I love both the cameras.


"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> People have complained (rightly) about the noise level
> in Panasonic cameras, even the FZ30, their newest.
> But it seems to me that all Panasonic has done has left some
> of the "sledgehammer" digital noise reduction out of the
> processing in the camera, unlike some other makers.
> In tests this methodology has allowed for greater detail in the
> Panasonic shots than other cameras. You can always apply the noise
> reduction afterward, and tune it to your liking with
> "Neat Image" or some other competent noise-reduction program.
> Isn't this the better way?
> I am excluding cameras with very low noise from this discussion
> such as the Fuji F10.
> I also do not own a Panasonic.
> -Rich

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:48:39 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>all Panasonic has done has left some of the "sledgehammer" digital noise
>>>reduction out of the processing in the camera
>
>For the benefit of the less technical amongst us, what does digital noise
>actually look like?
>
>Keith
>
>
>

A graininess to the image composed of multicoloured speckles.
Little coloured specs where those colours shouldn't be.
Shows up in underexposed (dark) areas at higher ISO
speeds.
-Rich

Annika1980 wrote:
>> I don't like 100% noise free images. They look like they were
>> rendered in a 3D program.
>
>> So a little noise at lease for me is a good thing, it makes the
>> images look more real.
>
> When you look through your eyes do you see noise?

Yes - see Dibley's post.

> You sound like the loons that say vinyl sounds more real
> than digital cause it has scratches, hiss, & pops.
> For you, digital noise is a good thing cause it makes the images
> look more like what you're used to seeing.

Under some circumstances, noise can add character to an image.

David

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:50:08 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Under some circumstances, noise can add character to an image.
>
> David

Yes, but I'd like to add it when I want it. NOT have to remove it when I
don't want it (which is 99.9% of the time).

Pete

It is strickly a personal thing. If you like 100% noise free images more
power to you. I don't and that is why after 3 months with the 20D I sold it.
That and I didn't trust Canon to do firmware updates that didn't kill the
camera.


"Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>> I don't like 100% noise free images. They look like they were
>>rendered in a 3D program.
>
>>So a little noise at lease for me is a good thing, it makes the images
>>look
>>more real.
>
> When you look through your eyes do you see noise?
>
> You sound like the loons that say vinyl sounds more real
> than digital cause it has scratches, hiss, & pops.
> For you, digital noise is a good thing cause it makes the images
> look more like what you're used to seeing.
>

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:13:20 -0700, Pete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:50:08 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Under some circumstances, noise can add character to an image.
>>
>> David
>
>Yes, but I'd like to add it when I want it. NOT have to remove it when I
>don't want it (which is 99.9% of the time).
>
>Pete

Like dust spots in DSLRs without ultrasonic filters.
-Rich

Annika1980 wrote:
> You sound like the loons that say vinyl sounds more real
> than digital cause it has scratches, hiss, & pops.

It will probably follow the development of watches or fine gems. Fifty
years from now, the only cameras with noisy output will cost thousands
of dollars, because a flawless image is without soul or character. Only
by adding thousands of tiny imperfections, can we make the image of that
"special moment" truly unique.

-Mike